Wednesday, February 07, 2007

The IPCC "report" and other bits

I'm sure you've heard by now, last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its report. I wanted to wait a few days to see what the media and other folks had to say about it.

What's changed since the last report in 2001? Well, the hype about doom and gloom hasn't. I'd say it's increased, although the predictions have decreased.

This article explains how their predictions have halved by each report.

The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by .09 to .88 metres (3.5 to 34.6 inches or 9 to 88 cm).

In other words, in just six years, predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!

At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!

Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected the sun's output may wane, leading to global cooling.

It also points out that the actual science to supposedly explain these predictions won't come out in a report to be released in a few months.

What was that?
What's most troubling about all of this is the 21-page, much-hyped summary is not referenced at all.

The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.

This is problematic on many fronts, but as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats.

Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained their work has been grossly misrepresented.

Oh, okay, now I understand. Let's get a unanimous consensus among officials (i.e. political group-think), then later we'll release the scientific report. Oh but wait, it gets better.

This article explains how the IPCC comes to its conclusions:

And don't expect the full truth to come out even when the 1,600 pages of science are finally released. The IPCC has a habit of censuring the work of scientists who disagree with the global alarmist orthodoxy. It has also instructed scientists still working on their academic contributions to the final report that those contributions must be modified after publication of the summary so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary's conclusions.

It is the political tail wagging the scientific dog.

Yeah, no kidding. Woof!

Here's exactly what the IPCC procedures say:
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after
acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure
consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15)"

It's like sending in a tax return saying you get money back and then fudging your receipts to prove it. It's like saying something is fact, then make the science fit that fact.

Well, you get the idea.


Now for a good chuckle on complying with the Kyoto Accord, read this.

Speaking of which, the Liberals recently put forth a motion asking the government to recommit to the Kyoto Protocol, which motion was then passed with the help of the other socialist parties. Granted, it's a non-binding motion, and the government can commit all it wants, like the Liberals did, but not deliver on anything.

So now the Liberals are lambasting the Conservatives for not keeping their promises on health care wait times. There's a stretch if I've ever heard one.

The Liberals have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister recently announced a tax cut guarantee! Any interest savings from debt payments will automatically go toward tax cuts for individuals. This is so obvious and simple and very conservative, no wonder the Liberals never did it. So the more the government pays down the debt, the more money you get, and the less burden it puts on your children and grandchildren in future years.

In other news, Maverick MP Garth Turner switches to the Liberals. Finally. Not that your own credibility wasn't shot to begin with (h/t Stephen Taylor).

As well, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach tells it like it is.
"You want to reduce back to 1990 levels -- how do you do it without destroying
the economy?" Stelmach said. "Nobody can deliver on it without hurting the
economy to the point where we will lose services."

So all in all, things on the political side in Canada seem to be going smoothly for us conservatives.

Meanwhile, in the U.S.&A., my main man, former New York mayor, "America's Mayor", Rudy Giuliani is now grabbing attention, making headlines, and out in front in his own party and against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on his run for the White House. Some of you know, but two years ago, if not more, I made the prediction that he would become the next President. Rudy is the exact type of leader this country needs. Mark my words. And you'll be hearing more of this throughout the campaign.

And with Harper poised to win the next Canadian election, possibly this Spring, and with Rudy as President, this libertarian conservative (that's me by the way), couldn't be happier.

1 comment:

Lee_D said...

You'll enjoy this, I think.